Post navigation

13 thoughts on “Did Jesus Claim to be God? An Interview with Dr. Brant Pitre on the Myth from Secular Scholarship.”

The question about St. Paul’s teachings compared to Jesus’ comes at 1:05:22. Dr. Pitre isn’t prepared for the question of course, so it’s not detailed, but he does make a good point that St. Paul teaches on the implications of the Resurrection; whereas, Christ teaches on the Kingdom.

Using the Second Temple context, we can infer that St Paul taught that Jesus was the second YHWH of the OT. This figure, the Angel of Yahweh, was understood by other terms in the Second Temple period: Wisdom (Khokhma / Sophia); Word (Dabar / Memra / Logos); Prince (Nasi / Archon); and Image (Eikon).

The Angel of the Yahweh, when it means the Second Yahweh (as opposed an angel sent by the Divine Council) tends to mean an emphasis on Yahweh as the covenant God of Israel. The Angel appears in scenes linked to Israel’s relationship to God, beginning with Abraham – e.g. the Aqedah. The Wisdom figure is essentially another way of talking about the Angel, because the Wisdom figure is understood not to be the Spirit, but talking about Wisdom is moving the emphasis away from Israel to God’s relationship with creation generally. Thus in the Targum on Genesis 1, which is the source of John 1, Wisdom is there with God helping Him create the universe. St Paul is drawing on this tradition (he refers to it at 1 Corinthians 1:24, where he calls Christ the Wisdom and Power of God) because he is writing to a Gentile (and Jewish): he wants to emphasise that Christ is the God of the Gentiles also, is deeply involved with creation, being its Creator, and loves the creation – hence His willingness to die for us. The Wisdom motif is a foundational layer of Paul’s Christology, forming a nexus between Christ as the Creator and Christ as the rabbi, the life guide, the second Moses: Wisdom teaching us how to live.

The Image is another way of talking about the Angel, but also links Christ into Paul’s Second Adam motif. No one has seen Yahweh, so all those times in the OT when people saw Him, they saw not the Father, but the Angel. Christ as the Image of the invisible Yahweh is thus both the Yahweh of various OT encounters (Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, Samson’s parents, Samuel, Jeremiah, Daniel), but is the Angel come again in the flesh as the image of Yahweh sent to the House of Israel. This forms the link between the exilic community living in Israel in the Gospels and the Israel of the OT. The first Israelites disobeyed the Angel, and the exiled Israelites also disobeyed the Angel – both were punished: the 40 years exile; the continued exile. It should be noted that the NT writers did not consider the exile to be over: Jeremiah’s 70 years was extended by Daniel’s 70 7s and Israel’s disobedience meant that the 70 7s were not completed during the first coming. The restoration of the Kingdom to Israel (Acts 1) is the end of the exile – which has not happened yet. 1948 does NOT mark the end of the Jewish exile.

As to the Second Adam. The first Adam is the image of God: read Genesis 1-3 with an ANE lens and you will see that the Garden of Eden is a temple, and Adam is the idol. “Let us make man in our image…” Adam was to rule the earthly realm as Yahweh’s vicegerent, participating in the Divine Council. That failed catastrophically. The Second Adam puts the project back online and it will be inaugurated in all its glory when the Second Adam rules from the Garden in His resurrection body. Thus the consummation awaits the resurrection of the Church.

Yes, if you listen to the podcast, Dr. Pitre explains that secular scholars often argue that only the gospel of John is where Jesus is claimed to be divine and it’s legend. Whereas, in the synoptic Gospels he does not. Again, Dr. Pitre explains how this is false and even gets Ehrman to admit to it.

Dr. Pitre explains that secular scholars often argue that only the gospel of John is where Jesus is claimed to be divine and it’s legend. Whereas, in the synoptic Gospels he does not. Again, Dr. Pitre explains how this is false and even gets Ehrman to admit to it.”